Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The amendments to the claims, filed on 03/27/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 9-12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments is below.
Summary of Arguments (Emphasis Added):
1. Regarding claim 1 and 3-17 rejected under 35 USC. § l02(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hu, Applicant alleges the paragraphs [0072]-[0075], [0083], and [0212] in the prior art don’t teach the claimed “associated with one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered samples” because Optical filter coefficients are not the same as “fixed-filtered samples”. See Remarks, p. 6 of 10.
2. Regarding claim 8 rejection, for similar reasons presented above, Applicant submits the claim is allowable. See Remarks, p. 7 of 10.
3. Regarding claim 2 rejected under 35 USC. § l03 over Hu in view of Hanhart, Applicant traverses the rejection because Hanhart does not cure the deficiencies of Hu discussed above in connection with independent claim 1.
Examiner’s Responses (Emphasis Added):
1. Regarding the arguments for rejection of claim 1, it appears that the ‘Optimal filter coefficients’ in the phrase disclosed by Hu [para. 0083] ‘Optimal filter coefficients … predicted using a prediction pool of fixed filters’ is misread to teach the claim limitation “neighbouring fixed-filtered samples”. For clarity, mapping the prior art disclosures to the claim limitation is recited as follows:
“ …; deriving a current filtered output from an ALF (i.e. ‘perform adaptive loop filtering … on samples resulting from the reconstruction of a current block’) for a current sample in the current block [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF], …”, wherein the ALF comprises an input term (i.e. ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’) [para. 0072-0075, 0212] associated with one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered samples [para. 0083: ‘Optimal filter coefficients for each class are predicted using a prediction pool of fixed filters’], and …”.
That is, Hu [para. 0073] disclosing ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample …’ and [para. 0112-0131] disclosing the output ‘O(x,y)’ of ALF expressed by equations 1-9 meets the claim limitation ‘deriving a current filtered output from an ALF for a current sample in the current block, wherein the ALF comprises an input term associated with one or more neighbouring … samples’.
Then Hu [para. 0083-0093] disclosing ‘fixed prediction filters’ with predicted coefficients meets the claim limitation “fixed filtered”. Thus, Hu, in combination of disclosures in para. 0073, 0083, 0112-0131, meets the claim limitation “ …; deriving a current filtered output from an ALF for a current sample in the current block, wherein the ALF comprises an input term associated with one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered …, and …”.
2. Regarding the arguments for claim 8 rejection, for similar reasons presented above, claim 8 remains rejected.
3. Regarding the arguments for claim 2 rejection, for similar reasons presented above for claim 1, claim 2 remains rejected.
Therefore, all claims 1-8 stand rejected. See the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (“Hu”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2020/0304785 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
A method for Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) (i.e. ‘Filter Unit 312’ including ALF ‘346’ ) [Figs. 8-10; para. 0196, 0203: ‘filter unit 312 may be configured to perform ALF techniques’] processing of reconstructed video, the method comprising:
receiving reconstructed pixels, wherein the reconstructed pixels comprise a current block (i.e. ‘predictive block’) [Fig. 8; para. 0207: the ‘Reconstruction unit 214’; ‘Filter unit 216 may then perform filtering (e.g. ALF filtering …) based on the output from reconstruction unit 214’];
deriving a current filtered output from an ALF (i.e. ‘perform adaptive loop filtering … on samples resulting from the reconstruction of a current block’) for a current sample in the current block [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF],
wherein the ALF comprises an input term (i.e. ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’) [para. 0072-0075, 0212] associated with one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered [para. 0083-0093: ‘Optimal filter coefficients for each class are predicted using a prediction pool of fixed filters’] samples, and
wherein said one or more neighbouring fixed-filtered samples are from a restricted area (e.g. ‘a block boundary of the block’; ‘samples located along a first one or more directions relative to the current sample (402) [Fig. 13]’) [Fig. 7; para. 0212-0214: ‘The second one or more directions are symmetrically opposite to the first one or more directions relative to the current sample’] with respect to the current sample; and
providing filtered-reconstructed pixels (i.e. ‘decoded picture buffer 218’) [Fig. 8; para. 0177: ‘filter unit 216 may store the filtered reconstructed blocks to DPB 218’], wherein the filtered-reconstructed pixels comprise the current filtered output [para. 0072-0075: disclosing ‘the ALF process may be applied to the result of the reconstruction process’; para. 0112-0131: disclosing in equations 1-9: the output ‘O(x,y)’ derived from an exemplary ALF].
Regarding claim 3, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the restricted area corresponds to a pre-defined region (e.g. ‘a block boundary of the block’; ‘samples located along a first one or more directions relative to the current sample (402) [Fig. 13]’) [Fig. 7; para. 0212-0214: ‘The second one or more directions are symmetrically opposite to the first one or more directions relative to the current sample’] or multiple luma classification blocks [para. 0083, 0119: ‘samples in a picture are classified into twenty-five (25) classes’; ‘the total number of operations per filtered Luma sample’].
Regarding claim 4, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the restricted area corresponds to causal region (i.e. ‘previously coded frame’) [para. 0087, 0160, 0177, 0202: ‘Filters derived for previously coded frames are stored’; ‘one or more previously coded pictures stored in DBP 218’ used for ALF] of a currently processed unit containing the current sample ].
Regarding claim 5, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 4, wherein the currently processed unit corresponds to the current sample (i.e. I(x,y)) [para. 0116-0118: Eq. 3 and 4].
Regarding claim 6, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 4, wherein the currently processed unit corresponds to a block containing the current sample (i.e. I(x,y)) [para. 0116-0118: Eq. 3 and 4].
Regarding claim 7, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the ALF comprises a second input term (i.e. ‘second set of input sample’) [Fig. 13: Determine second set of input sample ‘404’; Perform clipping function ‘408’; Fig. 7; para. 0072-0075, 0116-0117, 0212-0214: ‘The ALF process may involve input samples that are neighboring or proximate to the current sample for which the ALF process is being performed’] associated with one or more neighbouring intermediate ALF-filtered samples (i.e. ‘respective intermediate values’, ‘neighbor sample values I(x+i, y+j)’) [Fig. 7; para. 0116-0118, 0148, 0212-0214: ‘multiply respective filter coefficients … with the respective generated clipped samples to generate respective intermediate values’; equation 3 or 4], and
wherein said one or more neighbouring intermediate ALF-filtered samples are from a second restricted area (e.g. ‘a block boundary of the block’; ‘samples located along a second one or more directions relative to the current sample (404) [Fig. 13]’) [Fig. 7; para. 0212-0214: ‘The second one or more directions are symmetrically opposite to the first one or more directions relative to the current sample’] with respect to the current sample (i.e. I(x,y)) [para. 0116-0118: Eq. 3 and 4].
Regarding claim 8, the corresponding apparatus in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Hanhart et al. (“Hanhart”) [US 2020/0260120 A1]
Regarding claim 2, Hu meets the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the restricted area corresponds to a same 2x2 luma block as the current sample [para. 0057: ‘the sample dimensions of a block’: “NxN” where ‘N represents a nonnegative integer value’].
Hu does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the restricted area corresponds to a same 2x2 luma block as the current sample.
However in the same field of endeavor Hanhart discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the restricted area corresponds to a same 2x2 luma block as the current sample [para. 0075: ‘An adaptive loop filter (ALF) may be used’; ‘For the luma component, a 2x2 block … may be classified into one of 25 categories to select appropriate filter coefficients for that block’].
Hu and Hanhart are combinable because they are from the same field of data video compression.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Hu and Liu as motivation to apply ALF to a 2x2 luma block for “Virtual reality (VR)” in various applications [Hanhart: para. 0002-0008].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights